Alberta’s largest oil sands producers are urging the Canadian Energy Regulator (CER) to approve construction on the last remaining section of the Trans Mountain pipeline to avoid “significant losses” to the entire energy sector.In a flurry of filings after the holidays, two of the pipeline’s largest backers — Canadian Natural Resources and MEG Energy — each urged the regulator to approve Trans Mountain’s latest variance request along a 2.3 kilometre stretch in the Fraser River Valley near Chilliwack that was previously rejected earlier this month..“If the application is not approved, Canadian Natural and other shippers and in fact the entire energy industry and the governments of Canada and Alberta stand to incur significant losses caused by a delay.”Canadian Natural CEO Tim McKay.Failure to do so could cause incalculable harm on top of the billions of dollars in cost overruns and delays getting Canadian barrels to international markets. Earlier this month, Trans Mountain said the CERs decision could result in a “catastrophic” delay of up to two years if its decision isn’t reconsidered.That in turn could result in $200 million per month in delayed revenues and $190 million in carrying costs — notwithstanding any other losses for shippers and royalties to the Alberta government..Canadian Natural CEO Tim McKay sounded a particularly urgent tone in a letter to the CER dated December 22:“If the application is not approved, Canadian Natural and other shippers and in fact the entire energy industry and the governments of Canada and Alberta stand to incur significant losses caused by a delay of up to two years,” he wrote.Calgary-based CNRL is one of the so-called ‘anchor shippers’ on the line, with about 94,000 barrels per day — about 10% of the capacity — committed under 20-year contracts. Those contracts, signed as far back as 2018, were essential to providing the financial and economic business case for the project.Likewise, MEG Energy also has a “direct interest in the timely completion” of the project, wrote CEO Derek Evans.“MEG views (Trans Mountain) as an infrastructure project that is critically important to Canada and agrees that timely completion of the project in a manner that provides the requisite safety and integrity assurance is in the public interest,” he wrote.“MEG submits that the relief being sought by Trans Mountain is needed to ensure the orderly and timely completion of the (expansion) and requests the Commission’s expeditious review and approval of the application.”.“(The) CER must uphold their mission ‘with safety remaining at the core of our mandate’ and not rush any decision,”Simon Fraser professor Tim Tarko.Once complete, the taxpayer-owned Trans Mountain will ship about 890,000 barrels per day to tidewater in Burnaby through the Port of Vancouver, tripling its existing capacity.The $30.9 billion conduit, which is almost 98% complete, is asking the CER to reconsider its variance request by January 9 at the latest to allow it to begin accepting oil in the first quarter of next year.It’s already more than $20 billion over budget — cost that are being borne by Canadian taxpayers —and three years behind schedule.But Tim Tarko, a Simon Fraser professor who is opposed to the project, filed his own submission urging the CER to delay a final decision to determine impacts on salmon habitat given that it has already taken so long to get to this point. “(The) CER must uphold their mission ‘with safety remaining at the core of our mandate’ and not rush any decision,” he wrote.
Alberta’s largest oil sands producers are urging the Canadian Energy Regulator (CER) to approve construction on the last remaining section of the Trans Mountain pipeline to avoid “significant losses” to the entire energy sector.In a flurry of filings after the holidays, two of the pipeline’s largest backers — Canadian Natural Resources and MEG Energy — each urged the regulator to approve Trans Mountain’s latest variance request along a 2.3 kilometre stretch in the Fraser River Valley near Chilliwack that was previously rejected earlier this month..“If the application is not approved, Canadian Natural and other shippers and in fact the entire energy industry and the governments of Canada and Alberta stand to incur significant losses caused by a delay.”Canadian Natural CEO Tim McKay.Failure to do so could cause incalculable harm on top of the billions of dollars in cost overruns and delays getting Canadian barrels to international markets. Earlier this month, Trans Mountain said the CERs decision could result in a “catastrophic” delay of up to two years if its decision isn’t reconsidered.That in turn could result in $200 million per month in delayed revenues and $190 million in carrying costs — notwithstanding any other losses for shippers and royalties to the Alberta government..Canadian Natural CEO Tim McKay sounded a particularly urgent tone in a letter to the CER dated December 22:“If the application is not approved, Canadian Natural and other shippers and in fact the entire energy industry and the governments of Canada and Alberta stand to incur significant losses caused by a delay of up to two years,” he wrote.Calgary-based CNRL is one of the so-called ‘anchor shippers’ on the line, with about 94,000 barrels per day — about 10% of the capacity — committed under 20-year contracts. Those contracts, signed as far back as 2018, were essential to providing the financial and economic business case for the project.Likewise, MEG Energy also has a “direct interest in the timely completion” of the project, wrote CEO Derek Evans.“MEG views (Trans Mountain) as an infrastructure project that is critically important to Canada and agrees that timely completion of the project in a manner that provides the requisite safety and integrity assurance is in the public interest,” he wrote.“MEG submits that the relief being sought by Trans Mountain is needed to ensure the orderly and timely completion of the (expansion) and requests the Commission’s expeditious review and approval of the application.”.“(The) CER must uphold their mission ‘with safety remaining at the core of our mandate’ and not rush any decision,”Simon Fraser professor Tim Tarko.Once complete, the taxpayer-owned Trans Mountain will ship about 890,000 barrels per day to tidewater in Burnaby through the Port of Vancouver, tripling its existing capacity.The $30.9 billion conduit, which is almost 98% complete, is asking the CER to reconsider its variance request by January 9 at the latest to allow it to begin accepting oil in the first quarter of next year.It’s already more than $20 billion over budget — cost that are being borne by Canadian taxpayers —and three years behind schedule.But Tim Tarko, a Simon Fraser professor who is opposed to the project, filed his own submission urging the CER to delay a final decision to determine impacts on salmon habitat given that it has already taken so long to get to this point. “(The) CER must uphold their mission ‘with safety remaining at the core of our mandate’ and not rush any decision,” he wrote.
